Are the core base classes enough to build what you want to play?

[jmucchiello]

You would need to prop this swashbuckler up with abilities that compensate for the armor bonuses lost by wearing light or no armor. You ALSO need soem sort of minor compensation for the damage lost by not choosing the MEGA-HUGE two-handed power-attacking weapons.

Why? I don't expect the swashbuckler to stand toe-to-toe with a dragon. I expect him to occupy a mob of scurvy sea dogs by running up and down the deck (and up and down the mast) of the pirate ship, taking them out one-by-one slowly and steadily while the rest of the party is doing something else the mob of sea dogs won't notice because all eyes are on the flamboyant guy in tights.

The point of swashbuckling is not to deliver lots of damage. It's to draw attacks away from others (in the hopes you won't be hit) so they can sneak into the dungeons and rescue the king. If you are playing a kill/loot/upgrade game of D&D, you should not want to be a swashbuckler.

Now, there are feats that help; Weapon specialization, expertise, weapon finesse, dodge, mobility, etc., but they are limited enough to the point that the swashbuckler is still not a peer of the tank fighter.

And he shouldn't be. The swashbuckler makes up for pure damage skills by being a good people-person. He's charismatic, suave, flamboyant. He fights with skill, not muscle. He wears light cloths so he can ride a chandlier tether to the second floor. That's useful for cutting off someone's escape. The tank doesn't cut off escapes. He just watches them run away.

Just because it says fighter at the top of the character sheet, does not mean you should expect him to be a tank. That you equate "effectiveness" with damage dealing just means that swashbuckers aren't appropriate in your game.

 

[Whisper72]

You would need to prop this swashbuckler up with abilities that compensate for the armor bonuses lost by wearing light or no armor. You ALSO need soem sort of minor compensation for the damage lost by not choosing the MEGA-HUGE two-handed power-attacking weapons.

This is exactly the type of reasoning from players I absolutely abhor, and ascribe to roll playing / min/max behavior versus role-playing.

Why?! Why must everything a player decides to do that gives them less then the best combo (in this instance the wearing of light armor because that fits the persona versus tanking up to the best available 'because it gives the most bonuses')?

Personally I think this is nonsense. If the player decides to play a cool character, then s/he does so. If to play IC the warrior chooses a rapier and wears leather armor, then that is his/her choice. That is what playing a role versus only choosing what gives the best bonusses (min/maxing and roll-playing behaviour) is ALL ABOUT! The point of the game is to have FUN, and if a player wants to play a fun character, then by all means do so! This obession with being the best, balance and all that junk is exactly the kind of behavior that detracts from roleplaying.

If the players decide to play swashbuckling type characters, then their adventures will be different as well, thus negating the need for additional bonusses on other fronts anyway. A swashbuckler is not a tank, and should thus be played differently!

If you want a different style of play (cuz I am not saying that roll-playing is not a fun way to play as well), then it hardly matters what special (prestige) class I make if the net result is not a 'better' and 'more efficient' character, as you should simply choose whatever gives the best bonuses anyhoo... I might as well simply dole out some random powers to all PC's to make them more powerful, since that is what it is all about then....

 

[Henry]

This is exactly the type of reasoning from players I absolutely abhor, and ascribe to roll playing / min/max behavior versus role-playing.

Why?! Why must everything a player decides to do that gives them less then the best combo (in this instance the wearing of light armor because that fits the persona versus tanking up to the best available 'because it gives the most bonuses')?

Because sometimes, just sometimes, the enjoyment of the players needs to come before other aesthetics, such as propping up an imbalance between two characters who are supposed to have the same duties (such as act as a main-line fighter). I didn't say a fighter built as swashbuckler was unplayable; but they aren't different classes, they are the same class, and the swashbuckler-fighter who chooses dodge, combat expertise, and tripping will not be in the same league as the guy who did the roleplay-counter-intuitive thing and picked every "right" feat for the fighter class.

To me, acknowledging and preserving the inferior build over the superior is a punishment for wanting to roleplay a different concept than what the rules favor. The guy or gal whose party NEEDS a tank, yet wants to play a swashbuckler, is going to be taking a beating in combat.

Personally I think this is nonsense. If the player decides to play a cool character, then s/he does so. If to play IC the warrior chooses a rapier and wears leather armor, then that is his/her choice. That is what playing a role versus only choosing what gives the best bonusses (min/maxing and roll-playing behaviour) is ALL ABOUT!

Would it not be a negative incentive to roleplay, rather than a positive one? If Bob creates a traditional heavy-armored, power-attacking fighter, and Joe creates an effete, rapier-attacking swashbuckler, yet gets his head handed to him because he is too lightly armored, and can't defeat enemies because he's using all he ha into his expertise to keep from keeping creamed, does this teach Joe that playing a different role is fun, or does it teach him to make a tank when his current character dies?

The point of the game is to have FUN, and if a player wants to play a fun character, then by all means do so! This obession with being the best, balance and all that junk is exactly the kind of behavior that detracts from roleplaying.

Oh, agreed! But to be fun, a character should be effective in their role. If the player doesn't mind being less effective, then great; but the fighter class and 3.5 edition feats lend themselves to supporting tank fighters rather than swashbucklers. Heck, the rules support Archers better than swashbucklers!

If the players decide to play swashbuckling type characters, then their adventures will be different as well, thus negating the need for additional bonusses on other fronts anyway. A swashbuckler is not a tank, and should thus be played differently!

We're not taking a swashbuckling oriented campaign into consideration here; we are taking into consideration a mixed group, which OFTEN happens in a D&D game. The Wizard is a witch from the Amedio Swamps, the Burly Fighter is from the mercenaries guild, and the Swashbuckler is from the sea-port of Hardby, that sort of thing. If the whole game is swashbuckling in theme, that's a totally different scenario. But if the swashbuckler is the only fighter, then he's screwed, because he's not holding the line for anybody.

... I might as well simply dole out some random powers to all PC's to make them more powerful, since that is what it is all about then....

You wouldn't be doing what I'm suggesting then. What I'm suggesting is to tailor the abilities or feats the character has available to support them if the basic rules does not support an effective version of that archetype. Similarly, if a cleric wanted to be a summoner under 3.0 edition, he's screwed; at low-levels the creatures take a full round to summon, they had no special abilities worth mentioning when they got there, and they stayed only a few seconds. With the advent of the augment summoning feat in 3.5 and the Thaumaturgist PrC, the summoner became a more viable archetype, at the expense of other powers and feats.

 

[diaglo]

To give you a "Diaglo-Style" answer, people were creating Swashbuckling Fighters and Wu Jen-style wizards back in the days of OD&D.

couldn't have said it better myself. my work here is done.

 

[Umbran]

It depends, I think, upon what generates "the feel" for a given player.

For me, most of the diffeence between a samurai and a European knight lies in role-playing. It is more a matter of personal style, personality, character priorities, and suchlike than it is about game mechanics. So, I can probably manage to satisfy myself with core classes for these. Especially when the differences generally lie in the fiddly-bits of combat. I need a knight of Samurai to be able to hit with a sword. I'm not worried about exactly when he gets what bonuses.

For other folks, exactly what the character can do, in terms of game mechanics, is more important. For them, something other than a core class may be necessary to fill their wishes.

 

[atra2]

Actually, Henry, while Augment Summoning *is* all that and a biscuit too, a careful reading of even 3.0 will reveal that a PC who takes any two of the Alignment domains (such as Law and Good) and then only summons creatures of that alignment will have a 3-round duration Summon Monster 1 at 1st level. (Because Summon Monster takes on the subtypes of the monster summoned, whether Good, or Fire or Water or Evil, etc.)

That said, my 3.5 Summoner Cleric in Living Greyhawk with Augment Summoning is quite happy to have the feat. His Augmented Celestial Doggies turned the tide when he was the last character standing after the opposing sorc had color sprayed the party 3-4 times already (How? By not being within any of those Color Sprays

Quartus Goldstone is probably the only cleric of Heironeous you will ever meet without the War Domain... (Unless you use Complete Divine, of course...)

 

[GlassJaw]

That diplomat archetype sounds a lot like the bard... just take Perform: Inspiring Oratory and I think it pretty much clicks into place?

Well I would say no spells either. But maybe a skills-based class without sneak attack or spells is too close to the Aristocrat.

A cleric with Animal and Plant domains comes quite close for the second... seen that done and it worked nicely

That's certainly an option. Although I would want to trade in the turn undead and weapon/armor abilities.

 

[Belen]

My group had this discussion saturday evening. The players kept trying to tell me that there are too many limits in the PHB classes, feats, and spells. They would not be able to play the character types without all the feats etc from the splat books, because there were not enough options.

Talk about being spoiled. I am tired of all this crap. No one refers to their character by name anymore. My druid can do this, my fighter has this ability. You used to hear about things that happened to a character, or what he did. Now all you hear is about what they can do in combar, how much damage they put out etc.

It's BS!

 

[Belen]

Because sometimes, just sometimes, the enjoyment of the players needs to come before other aesthetics, such as propping up an imbalance between two characters who are supposed to have the same duties (such as act as a main-line fighter). I didn't say a fighter built as swashbuckler was unplayable; but they aren't different classes, they are the same class, and the swashbuckler-fighter who chooses dodge, combat expertise, and tripping will not be in the same league as the guy who did the roleplay-counter-intuitive thing and picked every "right" feat for the fighter class.

To me, acknowledging and preserving the inferior build over the superior is a punishment for wanting to roleplay a different concept than what the rules favor. The guy or gal whose party NEEDS a tank, yet wants to play a swashbuckler, is going to be taking a beating in combat.

I fundamentally disagree with this statement. If a fighter chooses a less optimal combo by not wearing heavier armor, then it forces that fighter to think about combat in a different way. Yes, he cannot stand up and take it as much as the tank, but he does not need to play it the same as tha tank.

There is no reason to reward people with extra mojo because they choose to play a concept that is not as optimal. Reward them for what they do, not with extra mechanics to make it so that they can be just as effective as the tank doing what the tank does.

They can still be as effective. They just need to do it differently.

The only thing I have "given" my players to hlp in the regard is a feat that makes any two skills a class skill. But anyone can have it.

Dave

 

[Corinth]

This is nothing new; it's always been that way. For the majority of gamers, PCs are little more than virtual playing pieces with modular parts and destrucable bodies. It's hardly a surprise to see people speak and act in that way.